Baughan 2010 Persian Riders in Lydia The Painted Frieze of The Aktepe Tomb Kline

XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept.
2008
Session: Meetings of East and West Being ‘Graeco-Persian’
Elizabeth P. Baughan
Persian Riders in Lydia? The painted frieze of the Aktepe tomb kline
Introduction
Aktepe lies within a cluster of tumuli near Güre in eastern Lydia, where many items in the famous
„Lydian Treasure‟ were unearthed by tomb-robbers in the late 1960s1. It had the most lavishly decorated
chamber of them all, with an ornamental façade, false barrel vault, and life-sized human figures painted on
the side walls, one on each side of a monolithic limestone burial couch resembling a Greek-style kline with
2
volute and palmette decoration (figs. 1–2) . Based on the style of the wall-paintings and the masonry, the
tomb has generally been dated c. 525–500 BC, early in the era of Persian rule3. The original tomb
assemblage cannot be reconstructed because finds from the salvage excavation were very limited and the
chamber was already nearly empty when would-be looters first entered it in 1967.4 They soon returned and
cut parts of the paintings from the walls, broke the kline, and removed fragments of its decorated supports5.
The rest of the couch remained in the chamber
and bore witness to further vandalism before
being moved to the Uşak Museum and reunited
with some of its stolen fragments (fig. 2), upon
the return of the Lydian Treasure from the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1993. The 1996
publication of this material included a digital ren-
dering of the front rail of the kline, showing in-
cised lines that once delineated a painted frieze,
including horsemen, a wheeled vehicle, and a
winged animal6. In 2002, Christopher Roosevelt and
Fig. 1 – Reconstruction of the Aktepe chamber and kline

(ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, fig. 82).
1
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 40–45, 70–73; ROOSEVELT 2003, 576–578 no. 433; 2009, 172, 178, figs. 6.41-42; DRAYCOTT 2007, 176–
183.
2
For this type of kline, see RICHTER 1966, 58–60; KYRIELEIS 1969, 151–177; KNIGGE 1976, 60–83, fig. 22.
3
ROOSEVELT 2003, 578; DRAYCOTT 2007, 181.
4
Finds recovered in rescue excavations after the looting include lydion sherds, alabastra fragments, and a carved bone or ivory lion,
ROOSEVELT 2003, 577.
5
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 44.
6
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 41–42, figs. 75, 78, 82.
Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale G / G1 / 3 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076
www.archeologia.beniculturali.it/pages/pubblicazioni.html
24
XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008
Fig. 2a–b -– Uşak Archaeological Museum,

view and detail of the kline from Aktepe.
I examined the kline under varying light

conditions in order to discern more of
this frieze. This analysis has not only
allowed a more complete reconstruction
of the original decoration – horsemen at
each end of the frieze, flanking a central
confrontation of lions and bull – but also
adds an important new element to the
socio-cultural significance of the tomb‟s
decoration, because the horsemen wear typical Persian riding attire. This paper will present our new reading
of the Aktepe kline frieze (fig. 3) and consider the significance of this decoration to the dating of the tomb and
to the social and cultural identity of the tomb occupant7.
Fig. 3 – Drawing of preserved lines and surface variations on the front rail of the kline from Aktepe, based on digital photographs.
Shading indicates where the surface is not preserved.
(E.P. Baughan and C.H. Roosevelt).
Preservation and methods of analysis
Only a few small traces of red pigment survive on the rail of the couch,8 and in some areas the
surface of the limestone is badly broken or weathered. But details of the painted frieze are indicated by
incised outlines, which are sometimes deep enough to remain even where the surface itself is lost, and by
other variations in surface preservation. Because the paint was applied directly to the limestone without an
initial surface treatment, some areas that once held paint have weathered less than areas that did not and
thus remain like smooth islands surrounded by weathering (fig. 4a). In other places, the opposite is the case:
areas of consistent, shallow weathering delineated by smooth edges (fig. 4b) may be „ghost‟ traces of
pigment that, over time, reacted with and removed some of the limestone surface. 9 All these variations,
though very slight, become visible in heavily raking light and may be enhanced by digital photography, since
a camera processes light differently than the human eye. The drawings presented here were created by
tracing the incisions and surface differentiations over multiple digital views of each portion of the frieze, in
Adobe Illustrator10.
7
A drawing and preliminary description of the frieze were included in BAUGHAN 2004, 76–77, 99–100, 366–368, no. A34, fig. 32. See
also, ROOSEVELT 2003, 577; 2009, 172, fig. 6.41.
8
Red paint is also preserved in several locations on the supports and the remaining volute capital.
9
As is the case for „ghost‟ patterns in the tomb paintings at Kızılbel, where a chemical reaction resulted in the removal of the stone
surface along with certain pigments, MELLINK ET AL 1998, 21.
10
It should be noted that some of the incised lines appear to have been filled with pencil for visual emphasis, some time after the
discovery of the kline, and that some of the lines and shapes visible in our photographs appear to be natural features of the limestone or
the results of geological processes. In addition, some prominent, light-colored lines appear to be recent scratches, probably incurred
during looting and vandalism, before the kline was moved to the museum. Other faint diagonal lines, which become more obvious in
raking light, appear unrelated to the figural compositions and are probably chisel marks. These factors have made it difficult, in some
areas, to distinguish between intentional and unintentional patterns on the surface; dashed lines in the drawings presented here indicate
the uncertain status of a visible line or pattern.
25
Fig. 4a–b – Sidelit views of left end of the frieze, with horsemen and part of left lion (courtesy C.H. Roosevelt).
Fig. 5 – Detail of fig. 2, center.
Subject matter, composition, and style
Lions and bull (Figs. 5–7)
At the centre of the rail, two lions approach a bull, facing left with head lowered. The left-hand lion‟s
head is discernible in profile, with open mouth, and some lines above its back evidently belong to a wing11.
The right-hand lion is less well preserved, but some incisions suggest a mane or the beginning of a wing 12.
The central animal is here identified as a bull on the basis of size, the beginning of a hoof-outline discernible
on the forward hind leg, the long tail, and the wrinkled creases of its lowered neck, as characteristic of bulls
in both Greek and Near Eastern art13. A horn is suggested by slight variations near the head but is uncertain.
Several diagonal lines visible within the body of the bull are probably chisel marks, rather than arrows
wounding the animal, as has been suggested14. Some of the enigmatic lines in the gaps between each lion
and the bull, and between the right-hand lion and the horsemen on the right may belong to patterns that
served as „filling ornament,‟ as is common in Archaic East Greek (and Lydian) painting 15.
At first glance, the lion–bull confrontation looks typically Archaic, and the lions have Lydian parallels:
the elongated body, thick neck, and massive paws of the better-preserved (left-hand) lion are paralleled, for
instance, on a Lydian „Wild Goat‟ style dinos16, and its rear paw is very similar to one engraved on a silver skyphos
11
Cf. ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, fig. 75.
12
Cf. the manes of lions on a silver skyphos in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1971.118), VON BOTHMER 1984, no. 49; ÖZGEN and
ÖZTÜRK 1996, fig. 4.
13
COOK 1981, 103, nos. G12, G28, pls. 53, 64–65. E.g., BOARDMAN 1975, fig. 8; 1978, fig. 191; 1989, figs. 84, 123; OATES and OATES
2001, figs. 81, 86, 104, pls. 10a, 11b; VON HOFSTEN 2007, pls. 1, 3–7, 30.
14
15
COOK 1981, 105–107; COOK and DUPONT 1998, passim.
16
GREENEWALT 1970, no. 1, pls. 2.1 and 3.1; COOK and DUPONT 1998, fig. 8.28.
26
Figs. 6-7 – View of central part of the frieze, with left lion and right lion (courtesy C.H. Roosevelt).
in the Metropolitan that probably came from Lydia17. The double-outlining of the lions‟ legs and bellies calls
to mind the reserved bands and paired incisions delineating animal anatomy in Wild Goat style and other
East Greek vase painting18, but the fact that it occurs only on the lions (not the bull) is puzzling and raises
the possibility of different artistic models for the lions and bull. The possible wing adds a further unexpected
element to this familiar motif – it is not matched in any Archaic Greek or Lydian representations known to the
author, but wings of a different shape do appear on some lions and lion-creatures in Achaemenid art19.
The motif of two lions flanking a bull with head lowered is found often in early Greek art, but by the
late Archaic period lion attacks are much more prevalent20. This scheme, however, with bull facing left, is
repeated almost formulaically on Clazomenian sarcophagi of the late sixth and early fifth century 21. Although
very different in style and composition, the Clazomenian paintings and the Aktepe animal confrontation may
derive from a common artistic or conceptual model, and this stock motif may have carried a general
significance in funerary contexts, as an apotropaic or heroizing device22. But it is also possible that it occurs
here as known (even if not typical) kline decoration: on an Attic red-figured skyphos of about 480 BC, a feline
faces a bull at the centre of a kline rail, flanked by snakes and floral patterns in a tripartite composition like
the Aktepe frieze23, and lions or panthers decorate kline rails on several other Attic red-figured vases, both
confronting other animals and in file alternating with floral ornament. 24 It is unclear, then, whether the lion–
bull confrontation in this context carries a special funerary significance.
17
Supra N. 12.
18
Reserve bands are usually limited, however, to inner divisions (e.g., of haunches from chest), except along the edge of the belly: e.g.,
COOK and DUPONT 1998, figs. 8.17, .21–.22; GREENEWALT and RAUTMAN 2000, fig. 21. See also, COOK 1981, pls. 4–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 14–
15 and no. E2a, fig. 12, pl. 19.6. VISMARA (2007, 61) lists double-outlining as an Achaemenid stylistic trait on Lycian coins, and bands do
outline some features of the lions on glazed bricks from Susa (e.g., ALLEN 2005, fig. 3.10), but there are no ready parallels for these
lions in Achaemenid art. Cf., however, animals on so-called Ziwiye gold plaques, such as Metropolitan Museum of Art 1987, 138–9, and
on Phrygian orthostat reliefs from Ankara, PRAYON 1987, pls. 6–8.
19
E.g., PORADA 1962, pl. 52; BOARDMAN 1970, 33–35, pl. 6 nos. 144, 146, 149; CURTIs and TALLIS 2005, nos. 85, 112, 118, 292.
20
HÖLSCHER 1972; VON HOFSTEN 2007, 9 n. 1, 37.
21
E.g., COOK 1981, nos. E8, G12–13, G28, H1, H4, pls. 23, 53–54, 64–65, 94–96.
22
HÖLSCHER 1972; MARKOE 1989, 86–115; contra Cook 1981, 109; also von HOFSTEN 2007, 46–57, who argues that in minor arts the
motif may have been primarily decorative, inspired by more expressive monuments such as temple sculptures.
23
VIENNA 3710: ARV2 380.171; MANNACK 2008, vase 204068. VON HOFSTEN (2007, 42) suggests that such decoration on Greek klinai
may have been inspired by Syro-Phoenician ivory furniture inlays, but by the time of this vase, the lion–bull motif had already become
well-established in Greek art and was especially common in horizontal border zones such as predellae on black-figured vases.
24
E.g., 1) Attic red-figured cup Basel L35, ARV2 179; MANNACK 2008, vase 352451; BERGER and LULLIES 1979, 94–97, no. 35; 2) Attic
red-figured amphora Munich 2303, ARV2 245.1; MANNACK 2008, vase 202451; and 3) Attic red-figured kalyx krater by Euphronios,
Munich 8935 et al, ARV2 1619.3bis; MANNACK 2008, vase 275007; BOARDMAN 1975, fig. 25. It is also worth noting that a row of leaping
27
Fig. 8 – Detail of Fig. 2, right.
Horsemen and chariot (Figs. 4a–b, 8–11)
The riders flanking the central animal

confrontation are more forward-looking in style
and contemporary in theme. On the right end,
three horsemen ride towards the right, led by a
chariot (fig. 8). On the left end, two riders are
clear, facing left (fig. 9). All wear some item of
dress that can be associated with Achaemenid
25
riding costume . Knee-length tunics had been
noted in previously published drawings26, but
our analysis reveals long trousers beneath
them, long sleeves, and caps framing some of
the riders‟ faces. In two cases, the trouser-leg
ends in a flared edge, and on one rider a zig-
zag pattern is suggested by several diagonal Fig. 9 – View of the right end of the frieze, with first horseman
lines on the thigh. The long sleeves of the left- (courtesy C.H. Roosevelt).
hand riders are rendered with subtle folds, and
a thick border marks the sleeve edge on the leftmost rider. This sleeve has a reddish tint, and another red
mass is visible to the right, behind the figure‟s back. Although the outlines of this area are not incised and its
shape resembles some of the geological formations in the stone (such as the oblong void just to its right), it
is suggestive of a cloak with an unused sleeve fluttering behind, as a Persian kandys27. Even if this is a
kandys, however, it is difficult to determine, on the basis of dress alone, whether these particular riders are
meant to be understood as locals or Persians28. The kandys may have been adopted by Anatolian elite as a
mark of status (or style) or to express an affiliation with the ruling nobility. And long pants, long-sleeved
shirts, and long caps comprise general „Asiatic‟ costume, worn by some riders in East Greek art (such as on
Clazomenian sarcophagi) and by others that could well be Anatolian rather than Persian (for instance, at Tatarlı
or Daskyleion)29. Even zigzag leggings, which are attested at Susa and are common in Greek depictions of
lions decorates the stretcher of Assurbanipal‟s couch on the famous garden-banquet relief from Nineveh, possibly as symbols of royal
power, K YRIELEIS 1969, pl. 6.
25
On this costume, often called „Median‟ (and its functional rather than ethnic significance), see ROOT 1979, 281–282; BITTNER 1985,
180–225; NOLLÉ 1992, 45–52; JACOBS 1994, 140–3; MILLER 1997, 156–157; KAPTAN 2002, 79–80; CURTIS and TALLIS 2005, 216;
STRONACH (forthcoming).
26
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, figs. 75, 78.
27
On the kandys, supra N. 25; also LINDERS 1984, 107; MILLER 1997, 165–167. For fluttering kandys sleeves, see, e.g., the Satrap and
Alexander sarcophagi from Sidon, KLEEMANN 1958, pl. 10; VON GRAEVE 1970, pls. 32, 38; and an Attic red-figured lekythos in the
Hermitage Museum (c. 390 BC), ARV2 1407.1; MANNACK 2008, vase 217907.
28
See DRAYCOTT 2007, 75–76 on the kandys as a public robe and mark of status for “Persian Empire nobles,” not limited to actual
Persians as court-style („Elamite‟) robes may have been. See gifts of robes in SEKUNDA 1992, 9–10.
29
MELLINK 1973, 298, pl. 46, fig. 9; COOK 1981, 116–117, no. G11, fig. 22, pl. 52.1; LINDERS 1984, 111; CALMEYER 1992, 9–14, figs. 1–
3, 7–9; MILLER 1997, 183–4; SUMMERER 2007a, 132–141, figs. 2, 5; 2007b, 3–30.
28
Fig. 10 – View of horseman and chariot,

from right end of the frieze
(courtesy C.H. Roosevelt).
Persians, may be more generally Anato-

lian-Persian30. The same is true for the
saddlecloths that are suggested by faint
incisions on two of the horses‟ bellies31.
The poses of some of the horse-
men, however, are also culturally sug-
gestive. On the right end, they ride com-
fortably, with arms resting before them
(where discernible), holding reins or an
idle, upright spear (fig. 8). Both of the
preserved riders on the left-hand side of
the frieze (figs. 4a–b, 11), however, strike
dy-namic poses, with arms extended dia-
gonally upwards, presumably wielding spears (the horizontal lines above the riders look like spears but seem
in fact to belong to a continuous border running along the top of the frieze, balancing a similar borderline
below this portion of the frieze)32. The riders‟ spears were most likely held at a diagonal, as usual for this
pose, which is common for Near Eastern rulers and Achaemenid elite hunting or fighting from horseback,
with one arm raised before or behind the head; in either case, the elbow is usually bent to some degree 33.
This dynamic variant of the pose, with arm held straight and so creating a strong diagonal, is more distinctly
Achaemenid – it is found, for instance, on a Persian stater, a „Graeco-Persian‟ stele from Bursa, and a frieze
of the Nereid Monument at Xanthos, all of the fourth century34. Earlier examples, with a slight bend in the
arm, occur on the Satrap Sarcophagus from Sidon (c. 450–400) and, even earlier, on sealings made by a cy-
Fig. 11 – Detail of fig. 2, left.
30
See e.g., BOARDMAN 1975, figs. 17, 29; MILLER 1997, figs. 22, 49; CURTIS and TALLIS 2005, no. 58; SUMMERER 2007a, 134, fig. 2.
31
Slight incisions on the leftmost and rightmost preserved horses suggest straight-edged cloths placed at a diagonal. For merlon-edged
saddlecloths in „Graeco-Persian‟ art, see SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 400, figs. 3–6; MERRILLEES 2005, pl. 4 no. 9, pl. 13 no. 6; VASSILEVA in
these Proceedings, N. 32.
32
Neither an upper nor a lower borderline is present on the other portions of the frieze.
33
Various diagonal lines are visible before the second rider, but it is unclear if any of these belong to his spear. On this scheme in
Achaemenid art, derived ultimately from Assyrian models: KLEEMANN 1958, 135; NOLLÉ 1992, 77–78. E.g., SCHMIDT 1957, pl. 10 no. 34;
W ISEMAN 1959, no. 107; GARRISON 1991, figs. 3–4; ROOT 1991, figs. 3, 6; COLLON 1995, fig. 122; BOARDMAN 2000, fig. 5.39; 2001, pls.
888, 1070; MERRILLEES 2005, 105 fig. 10g. For the same pose with arm held in front, see e.g., SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, figs. 3–4, 11–12;
MERRILLEES 2005, no. 9. For spears held at a diagonal, even when multiple riders are shown, see the lost relief from Yeniceköy, near
Daskyleion: MACRIDY 1913, 354 figs. 5–6; KLEEMANN 1958, pl. 33b; NOLLÉ 1992, 37–38, FV, pl. 15a–b; DRAYCOTT 2007, no. 22, pl. 46.
34 th
4 -century stater: CURTIS and TALLIS 2005, no. 327. Bursa stele: CREMER 1984, 87–91, pl. 6c; NOLLÉ 1992, no. S8, pl. 11; DRAYCOTT
2007, pl. 41b. Nereid Monument: KLEEMANN 1958, 126, 135, pls. 22c–d; CHILDS and DEMARGNE 1989, 187–8, 355, pls. 115–117, XLIV–
XLV. Cf. also, BOARDMAN 2000, fig. 5.1 and MERRILLEES 2005, no. 13, fig. 10g, pl. 6, an Achaemenid seal of „mixed‟ style in Switzerland
(and a modern copy of it); and KAPTAN 2002, no. DS95, pl. 282–3, a „Persianizing‟ sealing of the late fifth/early fourth century.
29
linder seal belonging to Cyrus of Anšan, probably the grandfather of Cyrus the Great35. The circulation of
such imagery on sealstones and the use of such poses in monumental commissions such as battle paintings
or satrapal palace decoration may account for this consistency over such a long period of time 36.
The chariot on the right end of the frieze (figs. 8 and 10) is less easily matched in Greek or
Achaemenid art. It is not fully preserved, and there are many overlapping lines that make the original design
difficult to determine; what is clear is a wheel, with six spokes indicated by incised lines (though their spacing
suggests that wheel was painted with ten or twelve spokes), a chariot box with straight back and curved
front, and pole(s) extending to the right37. Little of the charioteer remains, and the horses cannot clearly be
discerned among the various lines visible on the preserved surfaces to the right. The straight back and large
wheel of the chariot are comparable to heavy Achaemenid-style chariots such as those depicted at
Persepolis and in the tomb paintings from Tatarlı38, but the curved front profile also recalls chariots depicted
in Archaic East Greek art39.
What, then, are these horsemen doing, and what is their thematic significance? The spears of the
right-hand riders suggest that they are setting out for hunting or warfare. Stray lines and patterns beneath
their horses are suggestive of running dogs, but none are certain; and since dogs are found in association
with both hunters and warriors in contemporary East Greek art 40, their presence would be inconclusive. The
active poses of the left-hand riders could likewise suit hunting or battle, but the composition at the far left
suggests human combat: here the surface of the stone is poorly preserved, but there seem to be several
overlapping figures including a leg of a striding figure, wearing long trousers or leggings, and perhaps a
sleeved figure extending an arm towards the leftmost horse. Both themes of course find ready parallels in
Anatolian-Persian funerary art, sometimes even combined in a sort of „biographical narrative‟41. A hunting
scene may reflect the tomb owner‟s enjoyment of this Achaemenid elite pastime, while a battle scene may
allude to his participation in military campaigns. In the context of kline decoration, however, the precise
nature of the riders‟ action may not be as important as their display itself: elite riders, whether local or
Persian, here serve as furniture decoration, framing a more traditional decorative yet symbolic motif, the
lion–bull confrontation. The riders may also serve a symbolic function, to express affiliation with or admiration
for Achaemenid-era cavalry.
Stylistically, the riders present a striking contrast to the Archaizing animal confrontation. We have
already seen that the dynamic poses of the left-hand riders find their closest parallels in the fifth and fourth
centuries, on works like the Nereid Monument and the Satrap Sarcophagus. These works, and „Graeco-
Persian‟ art of other media, such as carved sealstones, also offer parallels for the rendering of the soft
volumes of the riders‟ sleeves through subtle modulations across the forearm42. Such parallels do not require
dating Aktepe as late as the fourth century; more probably, elements of the kline frieze derived from
Achaemenid seals or commemorative paintings that also served as models for these later works 43. Still, the
35
Satrap Sarcophagus: KLEEMANN 1958, pl. 10; ASSMAN 1963, 692; for a later dating (380/370), see GABELMANN 1979, 166–177; 1982,
494. Cyrus of Anšan sealings: AMIET 1973, pl. VI no. 28; GARRISON 1991, figs. 1–2; CURTIS and TALLIS 2005, no. 308. Cf. also, a
MERRILLEES 2005, pl. 3 no. 3 (Neo-Elamite seal); KAPTAN 2002, nos. DS65 and DS86, pls. 197–198, 257–258 („Persianizing‟ sealings
from Daskyleion); NOLLÉ 1992, no. S7, pls. 9–10 (stele from Çavuşköy).
36
KAPTAN 2002, 91–2; MILLER 1997, 123.
37
The wheel is identified in ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 42 as an eight-spoked wheel, and seven spokes are included in the drawing, fig.
75.
38
LITTAUER and CROUWEL 1979, 144–147, figs. 80–82; CURTIS and TALLIS 2005, 212, no. 398; SUMMERER 2007a, 134, figs. 2, 5, 10.
See also the wheels preserved in a Lydian tumulus at Bin Tepe: DEDEOĞLU 1991, 124–128; KÖKTEN ERSOY 1998, 128–129.
39
See especially, archaic marble frieze slabs from Myous in Ionia, BLÜMEL 1963, 61–62, no. 65, fig. 201. For other representations of
chariots in East Greek art, with wheels variously of four, six, or eight spokes, see COOK 1981, 127–128; ÅKERSTRÖM 1966, 52, pls. 19,
21–25, 33–34; RAMAGE 1978, no. 8, fig. 39.
40
E.g., COOK 1981, no. G11, fig. 22, pl. 52.1 (battle); no. E7, pl. 26 (hunt); no. E2a, fig. 12 (riders with dogs). See also, the terracotta
frieze plaques with racing chariots, ÅKERSTRÖM 1966, pls. 19, 21–25; cf. RAMAGE 1978, no. 14, fig. 46 and frontispiece.
41
MELLINK 1973, 301; MELLINK ET AL 1998, 61–62; NOLLÉ 1992, 76–79; SEVINÇ ET AL 2001, 401, 414 n. 103; DRAYCOTT 2007, 129–130,
190–194; SUMMERER 2007a, 132–136.
42
KLEEMAN 1958, pls. 6, 10; GABELMANN 1979, 172–173; BOARDMAN 2000, 169–174.
43
This may also explain why only this part of the frieze is contained by border lines.
30
style of the left-hand riders, perhaps even rendered with three-quarter perspective44, falls more comfortably
in the early to mid-fifth than the late sixth century, as the tomb has previously been dated; the kline
decoration therefore helps to refine the date of the initial burial in the tomb chamber to the first half of the fifth
century45. The concurrence of Archaizing and fifth-century styles is unexpected but not without parallel. A
similar combination of Archaic Greek and contemporary „Graeco-Persian‟ styles and themes is found in the
wall paintings of the tumulus at Tatarlı in western Phrygia, now dated by dendrochronology to the mid-fifth
46
century . And on Clazomenian sarcophagi of the early fifth century, Archaizing animal confrontations are
juxtaposed with more stylistically advanced scenes of hunting or cavalry battle, just as at Aktepe 47.
The Aktepe kline in context
Such extensive figural decoration is unusual for a kline, to judge from the many representations of
klinai in Greek art, other replicas in stone, and actual remains of wooden couches. Usually, kline rails were
decorated (if at all) with a series of rosettes, stars, or lotus-rosettes48. Animals sometimes occur in alternation
with these patterns, or in confronted groups (see above), but human figures are virtually unknown before the
Macedonian era, when they become a focal point of kline decoration, with elaborate compositions involving
human and/or animal figures49. The only other known example of a rider frieze on a kline rail occurs in a late
50
fourth-century Macedonian tomb at Dion .
Besides the painted frieze, the Aktepe kline has several other distinctive features that support a fifth-
century date and reflect the varied cultural landscape of the Güre region. In brief: its monolithic design51 and
heavily tapered legs are matched elsewhere in Anatolia in the early fifth century 52; the form of its head rest
seems to be derived from a type better known in central Lydia53; and the maeander pattern on its edge is a
special type, with hooks mirrored rather than interlocking, that is paralleled, thus far, only on a Phrygian
44
RICHTER 1970, 24–25.
45
Since there is only one kline, we can assume that it is contemporary with the earliest burial in the chamber (though the actual number
of tomb occupants is indeterminable, as no skeletal remains were recovered). In fact, the central position against the rear wall of the
chamber was the most common position for couches in single-burial tombs in Lydia. Also, its size (2.05 m L, 0.85 m wide, 0.54 m high)
and weight (about 0.55 metric tons, based on the average weight of limestone, 2611 kg per m 3) tell us that this monolithic couch was no
afterthought or casual addition to the tomb.
46
Draycott in these proceedings; SUMMERER 2007a, 145; KUNIHOLM ET AL 2007, 155–158.
47
E.g., COOK 1981, no. G13, pl. 54. See also, an incised silver alabastron from the Basmacı tumulus, also in the Güre region, where two
riders (wearing short tunics and perhaps trousers) are paired with a lion-attacking-bull motif: AKBIYIKOĞLU 1991, 22 fig. 2; ÖZGEN and
ÖZTÜRK 1996, 239 cat. 228.
48
BAUGHAN 2004, 36.
49
A single possible example in Greek art is known to the author: a scene of the Pygmies and Cranes on a kline rail (or coverlet), on the
interior of an Attic red-figured cup c. 470–460 BC, BM 1895.10–27.2l; MILLER 1991, fig. 19; CSAPO and MILLER 1991, 371, n. 22, pl. 97a;
MANNACK 2008, vase 11911. For Macedonian klinai, see Sismanidis 1997, 35–47, pls. 1–7. On other known funerary klinai from
Anatolia, rail decoration is vegetal or non-figural, except for the sphinxes that border a lotus-and-palmette frieze on the rear kline from
Lale Tepe: GREENEWALT ET AL 2003, 141, fig. 32; BAUGHAN 2004, 74–75; 2008, 65-67.
50
SOTIRIADIS 1932, 43–45, fig. 5; VON GRAEVE 1970, 65, pl. 76.2, 77.3; GOSSEL 1980, 122–124; SISMANIDIS 1997, 91–95; BOARDMAN
th
2000, fig. 5.88b (mislabelled as wall-painting). The 6 -century relief with a rider frieze, from Bin Tepe, is too small to belong to a kline
rail, as has been suggested: HANFMANN and RAMAGE 1978, 156 no. 231, fig. 401; BAUGHAN 2004, 79–80. But cf. the file of galloping
horsemen on a kline mattress on a red-figured kylix attributed to Oltos, Munich 2618, ARV2 61.74; RICHTER 1966, fig. 297; MANNACK
2008, vase 200510. The relationship of Macedonian and Anatolian funerary architecture and klinai lie beyond the scope of this paper,
but it is likely that tombs such as Aktepe in western Anatolia inspired Macedonian kings or tomb-builders. See also, GOSSEL 1980, 58;
BAUGHAN 2004, 7; SAPIRSTEIN and FATALKIN 2005.
51
At İkiztepe, also in the Güre region, ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 49 (although this kline has a continuous slab-like support on each end
rather than four individual legs); and at Karaburun II, MELLINK 1971, 251; 1974, 357–358, pl. 69, fig. 16 (although this is essentially a
block with legs carved in relief and is thus more akin to rock-cut couches). See also, BAUGHAN 2004, 56.
52
BAUGHAN 2004, 267. Cf. the kline legs painted on the marble supports from Dedetepe, dated by associated finds c. 475 BC: SEVINÇ ET
AL 1998, 311, fig. 7; BAUGHAN 2004, no. A186, fig. 76.
53
See BAUGHAN 2004, 60–62; 2008, n. 80.
31
architectural terracotta54. Completely unique as kline decoration are the recumbent deer or calves55
decorating the feet (fig. 2a–b). Their pose, with legs folded beneath bellies and heads turned back towards
their bodies, recalls Near Eastern models56 and, although the head placement is different, the many gold and
electrum pendants and bronze formers in the shape of recumbent animals in the Lydian Treasure, from
another tumulus in the Güre region57. Overall, then, the Aktepe couch presents a particularly Anatolian-
Persian approach to traditional kline form.
The painted frieze of the kline must finally be considered with respect to its context within the tomb
chamber, since it appeared between two life-sized figures painted on the chamber walls, each extending a
branch in the direction of the kline (fig. 1)58. On the left was a male figure that has been heavily retouched:
the lotus flower in his left-hand appears to be a modern addition, and he may have originally had a Persian-
style pointed beard59. The other figure has been identified as a woman or a young man; both wear long
robes that probably reflect local Lydian (or western Anatolian) attire60. Together, the paintings comprise a
sort of tableau that must be read as a whole, as Cathie Draycott suggests 61. The life-sized figures, by their
scale and interaction with the burial kline, bring it into the world of the living. When the deceased is imagined
lying atop the kline, their offering postures seem to recreate a funerary ceremony like the prothesis known
from Greek sources, as Draycott proposes62. The branches resemble olive, myrtle, or tamarisk, all of which
were used in ceremonial contexts in antiquity63. And the left-hand figure may originally have held an unguent
container like an alabastron, a common grave offering in Lydia 64. Although the kline form itself, which
functioned equally as a banquet couch and funerary bed, brings the theme of banqueting into the tomb, the
branches and the lack of drinking vessels (compare, for example, the kline-scene at Karaburun) suggest a
more ceremonial than sympotic atmosphere 65. Also in contrast to Karaburun, the figures attending the kline
here display no obvious Persian signifiers, except perhaps the original pointed beard of the left-hand man66.
While at Karaburun a local diginitary reclines on a Persian-style couch, is equipped with an Achaemenid-
style wine service, and on the other walls of the tomb is shown (probably) setting out for a military campaign
in Persian attire and successful in battle over foes clad as Greeks67, at Aktepe the wall-paintings suggest a a
local Lydian funerary ritual, and it is the kline frieze that provides Persianizing imagery and completes the
decorative programme of the chamber.
The combination of themes and styles found on the Aktepe kline could only occur in Achaemenid
Anatolia and in this particular Lydian-Phrygian border zone: a Phrygian maeander, Lydian headrest, Lydian
or Lydian-Persian recumbent animals, East Greek kline design with volutes and palmettes, Archaizing lions
54
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts 78.61.3, probably from Düver: ÅKERSTRÖM 1966, fig. 70a.3; MAYO 1981, 33, fig. 20; BUZZI 1999, 80. For
more canonical maeander decoration in this location, see BAUGHAN 2004, 33; SEVINÇ ET AL 1998, 310, fig. 7.
55
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 31, 42, 70.
56
Cf. especially the calves on the lid of an ivory pyxis from a well at Nimrud, OATES and OATES 2001, fig. 54; similar, but more
naturalistic, is the pose of a sleeping deer (?) on a „Graeco-Persian‟ seal from near Massyaf, BOARDMAN 2000, fig. 5.34. More
commonly, recumbent animals are shown with back-turned heads held upright, above the back, as in Scythian „animal style‟ art and
Late Geometric vase-painting inspired by Near Eastern models. See also, Achaemenid seals and metalwork: DUSINBERRE 2005, no. 46,
fig. 56; CURTIS and TALLIS 2005, nos. 129, 168.
57
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 59, 197, nos. 151–158, 189–191.
58
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, fig. 82. The upper portions of these figures were cut off the walls and are now in the Uşak Museum. The
lower portions remained in the tomb but are now nearly invisible, though their general appearance may be deduced from modern copies
painted on the rear wall of the chamber, presumably to be cut out and sold as antiquities.
59
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 43, 72 no. 8, fig. 81.
60
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 42, 45, 71 no. 7; DRAYCOTT 2007, 181, 183.
61
DRAYCOTT 2007, 182.
62
On the prothesis: ZSCHIETZCHMANN 1928; BOARDMAN 1955; 1990; SHAPIRO 1991; BAUGHAN 2004, 250–261.
63
64
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 43, nos. 75–8, 86, 228; DEDEOĞLU 1991, 149, fig. 9.
65
See, however, BAUGHAN (2008, n. 78) for myrtle in sympotic as well as funerary contexts. For Karaburun II, see MELLINK 1971, 252,
pls. 54–55; 1972, 257, 265–266, pl. 58; 1973, 297, pl. 44; ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 47. Also: BINGÖL 1997, 54–57, fig. 37 and pls. 7.1
and 2.
66
ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 1996, 43; DRAYCOTT 2007, 182.
67
MELLINK 1973, 301. Military imagery: DRAYCOTT in these Proceedings.
32
and bull but with wing(s) added, in Persian fashion, Persianizing chariot, and horsemen outfitted as Persian
cavalry and represented in „Graeco-Persian‟ style. This hybridity is of course not surprising, but what it
suggests is that elite social identity, whether for local Lydians or Persians, was dependent on both local and
Achaemenid traditions, and this kind of overt combination of styles may have appealed to both local
Anatolians and Persian nobles. The Persian costumes of the riders on the frieze could be meant to express
the identity or status of the deceased – either himself a member of the Persian cavalry, or of the local elite
that could accompany the king or the satrap on hunting expeditions or military campaigns – but could also
simply add a contemporary flavour to what were otherwise familiar subjects, or even express awareness of
contemporary monumental artworks showing such subjects. Whatever the case, the decision to include such
varied cultural signifiers at least reveals the fashion of eclecticism in this area at this time and may express
an admiration for things Persian, whether or not the deceased belonged to the Persian nobility. The variable
expression of Anatolian and Persian cultural elements may have been a means of social competition among
neighbouring elites in this diverse border zone. 68 We must remember, too, that this monolithic kline would
have been an ostentatious expenditure, and its position as the sole burial receptacle in the tomb was also
extraordinary, at a time when multiple burials and double klinai were becoming more common (as, for
example, at nearby İkiztepe).69 We should not, then, be surprised at the remarkable nature of its painted
decoration; perhaps future analysis with infrared or ultraviolet photography will illuminate still more
remarkable details of this accomplished yet elusive painted frieze.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Christopher H. Roosevelt for allowing me to present the results of our analysis of this kline
and providing photographs, to the American Research Institute in Turkey for funding my research, and to the
General Directorate of Monuments and Antiquities and the Uşak Museum staff, for allowing us to study the
piece. Thanks also to Catherine M. Draycott, for organising the conference session on „Being “Graeco-
Persian”,‟ of which this paper was a part, and to İlknur Özgen, for allowing use of fig. 1.
Elizabeth P. Baughan
University of Richmond
Department of Classical Studies
28 Westhampton Way
Richmond, VA 23173
USA
Email: ebaughan@richmond.edu
Bibliography
AKBIYIKOĞLU K., 1991. Güre Basmacı Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazısı. I. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 1–23.
ÅKERSTRÖM Å., 1966. Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens. Lund.
ALLEN L., 2005. The Persian Empire. A History. London
AMIET P., 1973. La glyptique de la fin de l‟ Élam. Arts Asiatiques, 28, 3–44.
68
DRAYCOTT 2007, 179, 183.
69
On multiple occupancy tombs: ROOSEVELT 2003, 194–198; BAUGHAN 2004, 151–154. For İkiztepe, see ÖZGEN and ÖZTÜRK 2006, 48–
50. Most Lydian stone klinai were in fact the sole couch in a tomb, and Karaburun II (supra NN. 28, 51, 65) is a contemporary parallel,
but equally extraordinary.
33
ASSMAN J.CHR., 1963. Zur Baugeschichte der Königsgruft von Sidon. AA, 690–716.
BAUGHAN E.P., 2004. Anatolian Funerary Klinai: Tradition and Identity. Thesis, Ph.D. Berkeley: University of
California, Berkeley.
BAUGHAN E.P., 2008. Lale Tepe: A Late Lydian Tumulus near Sardis 3. The KLINAI. In N.D. CAHILL (ed.), Love
for Lydia: A Sardis Anniversary Volume Presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr. Cambridge, MA, 49–
78.
BERGER E. and LULLIES R. (eds), 1979. Antike Kunst aus der Sammlung Ludwig, vol. 1: Frühe
Tonsarkophage und Vasen. Basel.
BINGÖL O., 1997. Mosaik und Malerei der Antike in der Türkei. Mainz.
BITTNER S., 1985. Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden. Munich.
BLÜMEL C., 1963. Die archaisch griechischen Skulpturen der Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Berlin.
BOARDMAN J., 1955. Painted Funerary Plaques and Some Remarks on Prothesis. ABSA, 50, 51–66.
BOARDMAN J., 1970. Pyramidal Stamp Seals in the Persian Empire. Iran, 8, 19–45.
BOARDMAN J., 1975. Athenian Red Figure Vases. The Archaic Period. London.
BOARDMAN J., 1978. Greek Sculpture. The Archaic Period. London.
BOARDMAN J., 1989. Athenian Red Figure Vases. The Classical Period. London.
BOARDMAN J., 1990. Symposion Furniture. In O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion,
Oxford, 122–131.
BOARDMAN J., 2000. Persia and the West. An archaeological investigation of the genesis of Achaemenid
Persian art. London.
BOARDMAN J., 2001. Greek Gems and Finger Rings, 2nd ed. London.
BUZZI S., 1999. Die architektonischen Terrakotten aus Düver, der Archäologischen Sammlung der Universität
Zürich. Zurich.
CALMEYER P., 1992. Zwei mit historischen Szenen bemalte Balken der Achaimenidenzeit. Münchener
Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 43, 7–18.
CHILDS W.A.P. and DEMARGNE P., 1989. Fouilles de Xanthos, vol. VIII. Le monument des Néréides. Le décor
sculpté. Paris.
COLLON D., 1995. Ancient Near Eastern Art. London.
COOK R.M., 1981. Clazomenian Sarcophagi. Mainz.
COOK R.M. and DUPONT P., 1998. East Greek Pottery. London.
CREMER M., 1984. Zwei neue graeco-persische Stelen. EA, 3, 87–99.
CSAPO E. and MILLER M.C., 1991. The „Kottabos-Toast‟ and an Inscribed Red-Figured Cup. Hesperia, 60,
367–382.
CURTIS J. and TALLIS N. (eds), 2005. Forgotten Empire: The world of Ancient Persia. London.
DEDEOĞLU H., 1991. Lydia‟da Bir Tümülüs Kazısı. I. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 119–149.
DRAYCOTT C., 2007. Images and Identities in the Funerary Art of Western Anatolia, 600– 450 BC: Phrygia,
Hellespontine Phrygia, Lydia. Thesis, Ph.D. Oxford: Oxford University.
DUSINBERRE E.R.M., 2005. Gordion Seals and Sealings: Individuals and society. Philadelphia.
GABELMANN H., 1979. Zur Chronologie der Königsnekropole von Sidon. AA, 163–177.
GABELMANN H., 1982. Die Inhaber des Lykischens und des Satrapsarkophages. AA, 493–495.
GARRISON M.B., 1991. Seals and the Elite at Persepolis: Some observations on early Achaemenid Persian
art. Ars Orientalis, 21, 1–29.
GOSSEL B., 1980. Makedonischer Kammergräber. Thesis, Ph.D. Berlin: Ludwig-Maximilians Universität.
GREENEWALT C.H. JR., 1970. Orientalizing Pottery from Sardis: Wild Goat Style. California Studies in
Classical Archaeology, 3, 55–89.
GREENEWALT C.H. JR. and RAUTMAN M.L., 2000. The Sardis Campaigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998. AJA, 104,
643–681.
GREENEWALT C.H. JR., CAHILL N.D., STINSON P.T. and YEGÜL F., 2003. The City of Sardis. Approaches in
graphic recording. Cambridge, MA.
34
HANFMANN G.M.A. and RAMAGE N.H., 1978. Sculpture from Sardis. The finds through 1975. Cambridge, MA.
HÖLSCHER F., 1972. Die Bedeutung archaischer Tierkampfbilder. Würzburg.
JACOBS B., 1994. Drei Beiträge zu Fragen der Rüstung und Bekleidung in Persien zur Achämenidenzeit. IA,
29, 124–167.
KAPTAN D., 2002. The Daskyleion Bullae: Seal images from the Western Achaemenid Empire (Achaemenid
History XII). Leiden.
KLEEMANN I., 1958. Die Satrapen-Sarkophag aus Sidon. Berlin.
KNIGGE U., 1976. Kerameikos IX: Der Südhugel. Berlin.
KÖKTEN ERSOY H., 1998. Two Wheeled Vehicles from Lydia and Mysia. MDAI(I), 48, 107–133.
KUNIHOLM P.I., NEWTON M.W. and GRIGGS C.B., 2007. Dendrochronological Analysis of the Tatarlı Tomb
Chamber. In İ. DELEMEN, O. CASABONNE, Ş. KARAGÖZ, and O. TEKIN (eds), The Achaemenid Impact on
Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries BC). Istanbul, 155–158.
KYRIELEIS H., 1969. Throne und Klinen: Studien zur Formgeschichte altorientalischer und griechischer Zeit.
Berlin.
LINDERS, T. 1984. The Kandys in Greece and Persia. OAth, 15, 107–114.
LITTAUER M.A. and CROUWEL J.H., 1979. Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East.
Leiden.
MACRIDY T., 1913. Reliefs Gréco-Perses de la Région de Dascylion. BCH, 37, 340–358.
MANNACK T., 2008. Beazley Archive Pottery Database, http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/databases/pottery.htm
(24 July 2008).
MARKOE G., 1989. The „Lion Attack‟ in Archaic Greek Art: heroic triumph. ClAnt, 8, 86–115.
MAYO M., 1981. Architectural Terra Cottas from Phrygia. Arts in Virginia, 21.2, 28–35.
MELLINK M.J., 1971. Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1970. AJA, 75, 245–255.
MELLINK M.J., BRIDGES R.A. JR. and DI VIGNALE F.C., 1998. Kızılbel: An Archaic Painted Tomb Chamber in
Northern Lycia. Philadelphia.
MERRILLEES P.H., 2005. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals VI.
Pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid Periods. London.
Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1987. Egypt and the Ancient Near East. New York.
MILLER M.C., 1991. Foreigners at the Greek Symposium? In W.J. SLATER (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context.
Ann Arbor, 61–64.
MILLER M.C., 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC. Cambridge.
NOLLÉ M., 1992. Denkmäler vom Satrapenstiz Daskyleion. Studien zur graeco-persischen Kunst. Berlin.
OATES J. and OATES D., 2001. Nimrud: An Assyrian imperial city revealed. London.
ÖZGEN İ. and ÖZTÜRK J. (eds), 1996. Heritage Recovered: The Lydian Treasure. Istanbul.
PORADA E., 1962. The Art of Ancient Iran. New York.
PRAYON F., 1987. Phrygische Plastik. Die früheisenzeitliche Bildkunst Zentral-Anatoliens und ihre
Bezeihungen zu Griechenland und zum Alten Orient. Tübingen.
RAMAGE A., 1978. Lydian Houses and Architectural Terracottas. Cambridge, MA.
RICHTER G.M.A., 1966. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans. London.
RICHTER G.M.A., 1970. Perspective in Greek and Roman Art. London.
ROOSEVELT C.H., 2003. Lydian and Persian Period Settlement in Lydia. Thesis, Ph.D. Cornell: Cornell
University.
ROOSEVELT C.H., 2009. The Archaeology of Lydia from Gyges to Alexander. New York.
ROOT M.C., 1979. The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Essays on the creation of an iconography of
empire. Leiden.
35
ROOT M.C., 1991. From the Heart: Powerful Persianisms in the art of the Western Empire. In H. SANCISI-
W EERDENBURG and A. KUHRT (eds), Asia Minor and Egypt: Old cultures in a new empire. Proceedings
of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop (Achaemenid History VI). Leiden, 1–30.
SAPIRSTEIN P. and FATALKIN A., 2005. Tumulus Burials and the Arrival of the True Arch in Greece. Paper
presented at the 106th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 6-9 January 2005,
Boston.
SEKUNDA N.V., 1992. The Persian Army 560–330 BC. London.
SEVINÇ N., KÖRPE R., TOMBUL M., ROSE C.B., STRAHAN D., KIESEWETTER H., and W ALLRODT J., 2001. A New
Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan. Studia Troica, 11, 383–420.
SEVINÇ N., ROSE C.B., STRAHAN D. and TEKKÖK-BIÇKEN B., 1998. The Dedetepe Tumulus. Studia Troica, 8,
305–327.
SCHMIDT E.F., 1957. Persepolis II. Contents of the Treasury and other discoveries. Chicago.
SHAPIRO H.A., 1991. The Iconography of Mourning in Athenian Art. AJA, 95, 629–656.
SISMANIDIS K., 1997. ΚΛΙΝΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΛΙΝΟΕΙΔΕΣ ΚΑΤΑΣΚΕΥΕΣ ΤΩΝ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΚΩΝ ΤΑΦΩΝ. Athens.
SOTIRIADIS G., 1932. Αναζκαφαί Δίου Μακεδονίας. PAAH, 1930, 36–51.
STRONACH D., Forthcoming. Court Dress and Riding Dress at Persepolis: Some New Perspectives. In J.
ALVAREZ-MON (ed.), Elam and Persia.
SUMMERER L., 2007a. From Tatarlı to Munich: The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber in
Phrygia. In İ. DELEMEN, O. CASABONNE, Ş. KARAGÖZ and O. TEKIN (eds), The Achaemenid Impact on
Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries BC). Istanbul, 131–158.
SUMMERER L., 2007b. Picturing Persian Victory: The painted battle scene on the Munich wood. In A.
IVANTCHİK and V. LİCHELİ (eds), Achaemenid Culture and Local Traditions in Anatolia, Southern
Caucasus and Iran. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 13. Leiden, 3–30
VISMARA N., 2007. Some Reflections on Iconographic Motifs in Lycian Coinage. In İ. DELEMEN, O.
CASABONNE, Ş. KARAGÖZ and O. TEKIN (eds), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and
Cultures in Anatolia (Sixth–Fourth Centuries BC). Istanbul, 59–68.
VON BOTHMER D., 1984. A Greek and Roman Treasury. MMAB, 42.1, 1–72.
VON GALL H., 1989. Zum Bildgehalt der graeco-persischen Grabstelen. Anadolu, 22, 143–165.
VON GRAEVE V., 1970. Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt. Berlin.
VON HOFSTEN S., 2007. The Feline-prey Theme in Archaic Greek Art. Classification–distribution–origin–
iconographical context. Stockholm.
W ISEMAN D.J., 1959. Cylinder Seals of Western Asia. London.
ZSCHIETZSCHMANN W., 1928. Die Darstellungen der Prothesis in der griechischen Kunst. MDAI(A), 53, 17–47.
36

Baughan 2010 Persian Riders in Lydia The Painted Frieze of The Aktepe Tomb Kline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baughan 2010 Persian Riders in Lydia The Painted Frieze of The Aktepe Tomb Kline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept.

Fig. 1 – Reconstruction of the Aktepe chamber and kline

Fig. 2a–b -– Uşak Archaeological Museum,

I examined the kline under varying light

Preservation and methods of analysis

Fig. 5 – Detail of fig. 2, center.

Subject matter, composition, and style

Lions and bull (Figs. 5–7)

Fig. 8 – Detail of Fig. 2, right.

Horsemen and chariot (Figs. 4a–b, 8–11)

The riders flanking the central animal

Fig. 10 – View of horseman and chariot,

Persians, may be more generally Anato-

Fig. 11 – Detail of fig. 2, left.

The Aktepe kline in context

You might also like